Senate
2 June 1926

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

BRITISH IMPERIAL OIL COMPANY
PAPERS
QUESTION
- KIDMAN AND MAYOH
ELECTORAL LAW : JOINT COMMITTEE
- Extension of Scope
QUESTION
- REFUND OF DUTIES
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
AUDIT BILL
- Second Reading
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2468

BRITISH IMPERIAL OIL COMPANY

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– (By leave.) - Honorable senators will remember that during the course of the debate on the second reading of the Oil AgreementBill, statements were made regarding certain activities of the British Imperial Oil Company Limited. The company has addressed to the Prime Minister a communication setting out further facts, and asking that the information be brought to the notice of hon orable senators. A copy of the company’s communication is accordingly laid on the table of the Senate.

page 2468

PAPERS

The following paperswere presented : -

Northern Territory - Report of Administrator for the year ended 30th June, 1925.

Ordered to be printed.

British Imperial Oil Company Ltd. - Letter from the company Betting out further facts with regard to certain activities of the company.

Federal Capital - Report of the federal Capital Commission to the Minister for Home and Territories for the quarter ended 3 1st March, 1926.

Naval Defence Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1926, No. 63.

Northern Territory - Ordinances of 1926 - No, 11 - Encouragement of Mining. No. 12- Real Property.

War Service Homes Act - Memorandum of an arrangement between the War Service Homes Commissioner and the Government of the State of Western Australia relating to the purchase of land, erection of dwellinghouses, &c, in that State.

page 2468

QUESTION

KIDMAN AND MAYOH

Payment to the Government.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Have Messrs. Kidman and Mayoh yet mode any payment to the Government in regard to the amount due by them to the Commonwealth in connexion with the wooden vessels contract ?
If so, what amount?
Is there any amount still outstanding?
If so. how much, and what terms have the Government allowed Messrs.Kidman and Mayoh for payment of it?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. Thesum of £38,000 has been received from Sir Sydney Kidman’s solicitors.

Yes.
The sum of £37,665 is still due under the award of Sir Mark Sheldon, together with costs of arbitration (£676 7s), cost of award (£215 5s 6d), and the cost of the litigation in the courts. No terms have been allowed for the payment of these amounts.

page 2468

ELECTORAL LAW : JOINT COMMITTEE

Extension of Scope

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– (By leave) - I move -

That the order of reference to the Joint Committee on electoral law and procedure, agreed to by the Senate on 4th March, 1926, be extended to include the folowing matters : -

Informal voting.
Absentvoting.
Joint rolls.
Administration of the compulsory sections of the Electoral Act.

The joint select committee in the pursuit of its investigation finds that it is not able to inquire into matters relating to informal voting, absent voting, joint rolls, or the administration of the compulsory sections of the act, although they are pertinent to the other matters referred to it. It is, therefore, desirable that its functions should be extended to enable it to do so..

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

– Will this extension of powers necessitate the committee going over the work it has already donein the various States? I think there should be a limit to this investigation. I do not think we should involve the Commonwealth in any unnecessary expense. Cannot many of the matters investigated be inquired into in Melbourne ?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes; but the carrying of this motion will not necessitate the committee going over work it has already done.

SenatorNEEDHAM (Western Australia) [3.8]. - When the select committee was appointed I realized that its scope was not sufficiently large. The subjects listed for investigation seemed to me to be too limited if the committee was to be expected to furnish an effective report. In these circumstances I see no objection to the proposal to extend its functions in the direction desired. It should entail no additional expense, nor require the committee to traverse ground already covered.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2469

QUESTION

REFUND OF DUTIES

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs yet obtained the return asked for by the Senate showing the amount of duties refunded to public and semi-public bodies during the past three years? If so, will he make it available for the information of honorable senators in connexion with the tariff debate?

Senator Sir VICTOR WILSON:

– The return asked for by the honorable senator will take some time to prepare. The department is now in touch with the various State representatives of the Customs Department. When the information is compiled, it will be made available to honorable senators without delay.

page 2469

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In committee (Consideration resumed from 28th May, vide page 2439) :

Schedule.

Item 3 -

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (b) (1), per gallon, British 30s.

– We are not now dealing with excise duties; but I can inform the Minister of my intention, when they come before us, to request the House of Representatives to remove entirely the excise duty on whisky manufactured in Australia. It has been suggested that if the present restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquor in the Federal Capital territory are removed, Australian whisky only shall be sold there. That may or may not be a good idea. Even in biblical times, the manufacture of strong drink, especially whisky, was regarded as a fashionable occupation. In Great

Britain, and particularly in Scotland, the manufacture of whisky has reached a high degree of excellence. I am not aware of the exact formula used by Scotch whisky manufacturers’; but I do know that the product of the Scotch distilleries is to be found throughout the world. These increased duties will have the effect of reducing the quantity of Scotch whisky consumed in Australia. Some people would regard that as desirable. I am not greatly concerned, personally; but Irealize, from the large quantity of whisky consumed in the Commonwealth, that this is a matter of considerable importance to . many in the community, who, if they had a voice in deciding this question, would not only reduce the duty to 30s. a gallon, but would abolish it entirely. I have suggested a reduction to 30s. only because I know it would be futile to go further. I cannot imagine anything so ridiculous as to tax a product of this kind. Such a tax is opposed to the best interests of the consumer of whisky. In Scotland, where the manufacture of whisky has been a national industry for many centuries, whisky is characterized, in the classical language of the Gael, as “ uisgebeatha,” meaning “water of life.”

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Does the honorable senator drink Australian whisky?

Senator GRANT:

Senator CRAWFORD:

– They do. It may be exported in bulk if it is accompanied with a certificate of description. It is then bottled in Australia and sold as something else.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL (South Australia) [3.25] -When I suggested just now that the Minister should state the case for the proposed, increase in duty, I certainly thought wc might get from him some information to justify the imposition of the duty. I do not think, and I believe the committee will agree with me, that the Minister has said anything to vindicate the action of the Government. He has told us that tho duty is not for revenue purposes, but to encourage the development of the industry in Australia. I know very well that the policy of the Government is to give sane and reasonable protection to efficient Australian industries. I am not going to say that whisky making in Australia is not an efficient industry. It has been established as an Australian enterprise, and, as such, is entitled to reasonable protection. But the point I wish to put is that the industry has ample protection at the present time. The Australian whisky is placed upon the market at 76s. a case, as compared with 100s. to 114s. a case for imported whisky. At per gallon the Australian product realizes 9s. to lis., as against 27s. for the imported article; and at per bottle, 7s. 6d. and less, compared with 10s. 6d. upwards for the best known imported brands. In most places it is sold by the nobbier, at, I think, 6d.. against 9d. and lOd. for the imported whisky in Victoria, and I think, ls. in Western Australia.

Senator Grant:

– How much is it in Queensland ?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– I am informed that in Queensland a nobbier of Australian whisky costs 6d., and imported is ls. Surely that is adequate protection. I have been looking through the report of the Tariff Board and I find that that body states that the imported brands are better known than the Australian whisky. That all depends upon what is meant by being better known. I should say that the imported whisky is more favorably known. Everybody who drinks whisky knows that Australian whisky is sold at 3d. and 4d. a nobbier less than imported whisky. Most whisky drinkers, I suppose, have sampled the Australian product. I have on more than one occasion, and all I can say is that the heaviest protection possible will not make me drink it if I can get Scotch whisky. Senator Reid. - The honorable senator’s taste must be demoralized.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Not at all. I think I can claim to be a judge of good whisky. Most whisky drinkers will agree with me that the Australian product cannot be compared with the best Scotch whisky. The Tariff Board also states that there is an unwarranted prejudice against Australian whisky. I do not think for a moment that there is, but it is not the same article as the Scotch whisky. I am referring to the taste. There is a general smile on the face of honorable senators, some of whom know nothing whatever concerning the subject, because they do not drink whisky.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Hear, hear!

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.The honorable senator is not qualified to speak upon this subject.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am listening to the honorable senator’s words of wisdom.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– I trust the words of wisdom will have some weight with honorable senators who know nothing whatever about the subject. I notice in the returns to hand that from the beginning of September to December, 1925, when the higher duties were in force, importations of whisky fell off to the extent of 101,000 gallons. During the same period the production of Australian whisky was increased by 26,000 gallons, and the total consumption decreased by 75,000 gallons. I can understand Senator Thomas saying that that is very desirable, but the reduced consumption does not mean that people who have ceased drinking whisky have become teetotallers. They are probably drinking something else that is not as pure as whisky. On medical advice, I consume whisky to the exclusion of any other alcoholic liquor.

Senator Crawford:

– Perhaps the people are drinking more Australian wine.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– I do not think a whisky drinker would substitute wine, excepting perhaps at meal times. The increased duty is penalizing consumers.

Senator McLachlan:

– In two ways.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– The honorable senator is quite right. It is said that 90 per cent. of the Australian whisky is sold in bulk, and that 95 per cent. of imported whisky is bottled and cased in Australia, which means that this work provides employment for a large number of persons. Employment is given to those engaged in the manufacture of bottles, cases, cardboard packing, and straw envelopes, in addition to those actually employed in bottling. So far as I can see, the intention of the Government is to prohibit the importation of whisky, if that were possible, simply by making the price prohibitive. The extra duty is not required to encourage local production or for protection purposes. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Pratten) stated in another place that 500,000 bushels of barley were required this year in connexion with the manufacture of Australian whisky. Any one who knows anything at all about the subject will realize the absurdity of such a statement. From 1 bushel of barley 2½ gallons of proof spirit is distilled, so that from 500,000 bushels of barley 1,250,000 gallons of proof spirit could be distilled, which is equal to the total consumption of whisky in Australia. The returns show that the quantity of Australian whisky taken from bond last year totalled 127,000 gallons, which would absorb only 60,000 bushels of barley - a mere bagatelle as compared with the total output of Australian barley. If the Australian industry should be further encouraged it would be preferable to reduce the excise rather than increase the Customs duty as is proposed. Every case that comes before us for increased duties should be based upon a just principle. No case whatever has been made out by the Minister to justify the increase, and, before we can be expected to support any increase, the Minister will have to prove that it is necessary.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Does not that apply to every item?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Not by any means. I am in favour of reasonable protection, and I believe that in the schedule there are instances where the increased duties are reasonable. In this instance the additional duties are not required for revenue purposes, and are certainly unnecessary to protect the industry. I asked the Minister to state the case for the Government on this item, as I was in the dark as to the reason actuating it in submitting such a proposal, but his statement shows that additional duties are not required for the protection of the Australian industry. Even if three distilleries were closed, and a fourth was working only quarter time, before the rates were raised the Australian whisky producers had a margin of from 24s. up to nearly 40s. a case and from 3d. to 4d. a nobbier to work upon.

Senator Crawford:

– The present protection amounts to only 4s. a gallon, whereas Australian wine is protected to the extent of 12s. to 15s. a gallon.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– Surely that is no argument. The question is whether this industry needs increased protection. I maintain it does not, since it has a fairly wide margin on which to operate. It cannot be said that they cannot compete because the protection is insufficient.

Senator Crawford:

– Evidently it was not profitable to sell at the price mentioned.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.They could increase the price by 10s. to 12s. a case, or anything up to 20s. a case, or by 2d. per nobbier, and still be able to undersell the imported article. I do not intend to vote in the dark for increases of this nature. If the Government can show that any of these additional duties are necessary to provide reasonable protection to any established industry, it will have my support. I trust honorable senators will stand up to the principles which they enunciated on the second reading of the bill, and decline to support higher duties which cannot be justified.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator Crawford:

– That may be so, but there are four distilleries, just as there are many jam factories operating in Australia, although nearly every factory has been absorbed by Henry Jones and Company.

Senator OGDEN:

– The Minister is disputing a document supplied by the Victorian Registrar-General, showing that there is only one distillery company operating.

Senator Crawford:

– I said that four distilleries were closed down. Does the honorable senator dispute that statement ?

Senator OGDEN:

– I shall read The share list of the Federal Distilleries Proprietary Limited. There are a few private individuals in the list. John Wren, of 15 Studley Park-road. Kew, holds’ 102,847 ‘ shares. Patrick F. Cody and Matthew J. Cody, merchants, of Flinders-lane, hold 102,846 shares.

– Passing by one of the leading hotels in Melbourne this morning, I noticed a window filled with Old Court whisky. The price at which it was offered for sal© was7s. 6d. for the full bottle, and 3s. 9d. for the half bottle. That hotel would charge 12s. 6d. for a full-size bottle of imported whisky. I can see no justification for this increased duty. No case has been put up for it. Even the comments of the Tariff Board, in recommending the increase, show that there is no need for the extra duty. The board reported as follows: -

The provisions of the excise tariff relating to the manufacture of whisky were framed for the purpose of compelling the Australian distiller to place a pure and wholesome article before the public,

I am not saying that the article is not wholesome and pure - and yet while these restrictions apply to the local producer, cheap blended, i.e., Scotch and foreign spirits, can be imported and sold at prices with which it is impossible to compete.

– I may not be thoroughly conversant with parliamentary procedure, but I am sure that if I transgress the Standing Orders, I shall be. called to order by the Chairman. Senator Lynch has urged that this duty will be revenueproducing. On very good authority I understand that if the item is agreed to as it stands, there will be a considerable decrease in revenue derived from importations of whisky. Again it is said that inasmuch as Australian whisky is sold as Scotch in many hotels, the presumption is that it is as good and as palatable as Scotch whisky. I am not saying anything concerning the basic production of Australian whisky. It is produced under the supervision of Excise officers, and consequently should be a pure spirit, but with whisky, as with many other things, it is a question of palate, and, obviously, Australian whisky is not as palatable as Scotch whisky, otherwise it would not be sold at a lower price. All whisky drinkers know that although they may call for a Scotch whisky, they do not always get the standard Scotch product. They may know that the whisky with which they are served is not that for which they asked, but few men care to challenge it at the time.

Senator Elliott:

– They cannot very well give it back.

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator Crawford:

– With the aid of a bounty.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Quite so. Senator Elliott has given us the assurance that the price of Australian whisky will not be raised. I endeavoured to puncture a similar argument, which was put forward by one of my Tasmanian friends in relation to the price of timber. We are not here to make bargains. As business men we must apply our minds to any matter that comes before us. According to Senator Ogden there has recently been an amalgamation of interests for the purpose of controlling the manufacture of whisky in Australia. I understand from the Minister that there are only four whisky distilleries in Australia. Shares have been allotted to the various interests that have amalgamated. Despite the fact that the Australian article is being sold at a lower price than the imported, we are asked to increase the duty on the latter. The inevitable result will be an increase in the price of Australian whisky, if the duty is sufficiently high to keep out the imported article. I predict that that will never happen, and that we shall merely be penalizing the consumer. We should have placed before us facts and figures justifying the proposed increase. We have been inundated with correspondence from both the Federal Distilleries and the representatives of the importers. The argument advanced in favour of the increase is that it is necessary for protective reasons. No such case has been made out by either the Government or the Tariff Board. I shall support Senator Grant’s request.

Senator McHUGH:
South Australia

– The quality of Scotch whisky does not concern me very greatly. Experts assure us that the quality of Australian whisky is excellent. I want this industry to be built up under Australian working conditions. I have always argued that it is the duty of the Australian Parliaments to promote Australian industry whenever they have a say, either directly or indirectly, in the working conditions of the people who are employed in that industry. “We have no say in the conditions of employment of those who manufacture Scotch, Irish, or other whiskies. I would make the duty higher than is proposed. I hope that this is but a commencement, and that later further increases will be imposed so that the distilling companies of Australia will have an opportunity to provide adequate stocks for those who desire to purchase their product’. The following paragraph appeared in this morning’s press: -

It is interesting to note that early in April last the Minister of Finance for the Union of South Africa announced in the Cape House of Assembly that the duty on whisky, brandy, and gin was to be increased from 37s. Gd. to 45s. per proof gallon. That duty is now in force.

If the Government of South Africa is not afraid to enter into competition with the great whisky combine in the Old World, why should we in Australia not act similarly, and thus build up a profitable industry ? Where would our wine industry have been but for the highly protective duty that it has enjoyed ? I remember the prejudice that existed years ago against clothing which was manufactured in Australia. There was a man in South Australia who invariably sent’ to London to have his clothes made. There was not in Australia a tailor good enough for him. Our wines are gradually finding a place on the market, and we now have good Australian gin and whisky. If the price. of the imported article is made dearer under the operation of the tariff, the people will naturally take to the Australian article. The local industry can be controlled. As a matter of fact we could take over that industry if it became a menace. I hope that the Government’s proposal will be carried. Let us give it a trial. If in twelve mouths or less we find that we have made a mistake we can revert to the previous duty. I trust that when the industry is better established it will continue .to produce as good a whisky as it is producing to-day.

– I do my share of it. If the honorable senator wishes to get personal and first-hand evidence of my attitude towards Australian whisky, I suggest that, at the close of this debate, he should invite me to the place where we can get it. I cannot understand why any honorable senator should oppose this increase in duty, unless, as Senator Barwell interjected, it is because, in their opinion, the industry does not require protection.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

.- Certain statements have been made during the debate which I think call for some explanation and contradiction. I stated that the probable result of an increase in duty would be an increase in the price of the local product. Advocates in this chamber of Australian whisky distilleries say that that is not likely to happen. I think Senator Elliott declared that the Australian manufacturer had given an undertaking that there would be no increase in price. Unfortunately for that honorable senator, I have documentary evidence to the contrary. I have in my hand a circular letter written by the Federal Distilleries Limited, Brinds Limited, and the Australian Distillery Company Limited to a client in Brisbane. It is dated 20th May, and reads: -

Bear Sir or Madam,

We are forwarding you under separate cover two show-cards representing the four advertised brands, of Australian whisky. We feel sure if these cards are placed in a prominent position, it will assist greatly in notify- ing the public of the decision of the United Licensed Victuallers Association, Brisbane, to charge8d. per nobbler for Australian whiskies. For your information the following comparison will show the advantage in selling our Australian product at 8d. as against the imported article at 10d.: -

Senator McLachlan:

– That is only what they might be expected to do. It is the obvious result of the increase in this item.

Senator OGDEN:

– But Senator Elliott said that there was a definite understanding that the price of Australian whisky would not be increased.

Senator Crawford:

– The figures quoted by the honorable senator are the retail, not the wholesale, price.

Senator OGDEN:

– Of course. My point is that, whilst it has been said that the price of Australian whisky will not be raised, this document shows that definite action has been taken to increase the price. The circular continues -

Another very important factor is, the Australian nobbier at 8d. isbound to increase the consumption of whisky.

What do our temperance friends say about that?

Senator Crawford:

– Eightpence, as against 6d . ?

Senator OGDEN:

– Yes.

There is room for this. The consumption of whisky in Australia fell from approximately 3,000,000 gallons in 1914 to 1,000,000 gallons in 1924.

Australian whisky is now distilled and bottled in bond under conditions described by Senator Barnes just now. The circular concludes -

Your esteemed support in this movementcannot fail to result to our mutual advantage.

– I do not think so. In Tasmania nothing waspassed on.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am reliably informed that since the imposition of the increased duties the price of imported whisky has been increased not only by the amount of the duty, but also by an additional charge. It is not a difficult matter to pass on an increase in duty. In fact, it is a simple matter to do so. It is also a simple matter to pass on something in addition to the duty, as the importers of whisky have done. If the excise duty had been reduced by 5s. a gallon, which would mean½d. a nobbler, it would have been very difficult for the manufacturer so to adjust his business that the consumer would be advantaged to the extent of that½d.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newlands:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I should not have risen had it not been for the assertion of Senator Ogden that I had misrepresented the position in regard to the undertaking of the local distillers not to increase the price of whisky. In support of his contention the honorable senator read a circular issued by the distillers to certain persons in Queensland. I must congratulate the honorable senator on the adroit manner in which he twisted its meaning. It is quite obvious from the tone of it that the letter was urging a decrease in the price, but

Senator Ogden had pencilled on the margin the words “ from 6d “, and read them as if they were part of the letter.

Senator Ogden:

– I did not.

Senator ELLIOTT:

-The letter is as follows : -

We ave forwarding yon under separate cover two allow cards representing the four advertised brands of Australian whisky. We feel sure if these cards arc placed in a prominent position it will assist greatly in notifying the public of the decision of the United Licensed Victuallers Association, Brisbane, to charge 8d. per nobbier for Australian whisky.

Obviously if it meant an increase in the price they would not have been too anxious to notify the public. But even if it had meant an increase, it would not have disproved the contention that the distillers ‘ were not increasing their price, because the increase would have been made by the licensed victuallers and not by the distillers. As a matter of fact, the letter shows clearly that the licensed victuallers were being urged to reduce the price.

Senator Thompson:

– I read that letter as indicating that the posters forwarded would be good advertisements for the Australian product.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– The posters were to assist in notifying the public of the decision of the Licensed Victuallers Association to charge Sd. a nobbier. Why should they seek to do so if they were proposing to increase the price? The fact of the matter was that as they were bringing about a decrease in price it was of great advantage to them to bring that fact prominently before the public.

Senator McLachlan:

– Was it not clearly an increase on the previous rate, that is to say, an increase from 6d. to 8d. ?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– No. After quoting comparative prices, the letter proceeds -

It will be seen by these figures that the Australian nobbier at 8d. returns 47.1 per cent, greater profit than imported at lOd.

Senator Lynch has shown that the charge on the Western Australian goldfields is ls. If the distilleries in urging the licensed victuallers on these goldfields to charge 10d., pointed out that it would be in their interest to do so, because it would give them a greater percentage of profit than they could get out of imported whisky at ls., they would be doing just what they were doing in the circular for warded to the Brisbane licensed victuallers. This letter proceeds: -

Another very important factor is, the Australian nobbier at 8d. is bound to increase the consumption of whisky.

How could an increase of price, if this was what they were urging, increase the consumption of whisky? Yet honorable senators who heard Senator Ogden, accepted the suggestion made by him that it was an increase in price that was meant. Obviously it was the very contrary. The letter proceeds: -

There is room for this. The consumption of whisky in Australia fell from approximately 3,000,000 gallons in 1914, to approximately 1,000,000 in 1924.

Showing, as Senator Payne is aware, that as a people we .are becoming more abstemious at any rate in regard to the consumption of whisky -

Australian whisky is now distilled and bottled in bond under Government supervision, and being described as “ old,” complies with a strict Government regulation which insists that whisky bottled in bond and described as “ old “ must be matured in wood for a minimum period of five years.

Senator Grant:

– The Minister says that the period is two years.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– Whisky is not classified as such until it has been matured in wood for at least two years. But if it is described as old whisky it must be matured in wood for a period of five years. The letter concludes: -

Your esteemed support in this movement cannot fail to result to our mutual advantage.

How would it result to the mutual advantage of the public and the Australian distilleries if the price at which Australian whisky was sold to the public was increased, when the obvious intention was to increase the consumption of the article ?

Senator Ogden:

– That letter was addressed to the trade and not to the public.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– Yes; but it rests with the trade to bring these particulars before the public. In any case how would an increase in the price increase the sale of their article? Obviously the best way to increase sales is to decrease the price.

Senator McHUGH:
South Australia

– As the debate proceeds we acquire a little more information. Incidentally we have had lectures from some of our Puritan friends on the Government side of the chamber. For instance, Senator Payne has lectured all and sundry. He may avoid the use of whisky, but I do not know that he lectures against gambling.

Senator Payne:

– I wish the honorable senator would stick to the item.

Senator McHUGH:

– The honorable senator will do nothing for any other State unless he can get something for Tasmania, and, as he cannot see anything in the proposed duties on whisky to the advantage of his own State, he gives us one of his occasional lectures. I hope that in future he will be consistent, and as he has become a real Puritan, I hope that he will go outside and talk against gambling.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newlands:

– The honorable senator must desist from personal observations.

Senator McHUGH:

– I have a circular, which contains the following: -

It is now generally recognized that the majority of the Scotch whiskeys now on the Australian market are blended spirits, consisting of approximately 25 to 30 per cent. pure malt whisky, and the balance silent or neutral spirit.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to8 p.m.

Progress reported.

page 2493

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2493

AUDIT BILL

Bill received from the House of Repr esentati ves .

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

.- I move-

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its staged without delay.

In order to explain the urgency of this measure, and the need for the motion which I have moved, I remind honorable senators that, within the last few days, the Commonwealth has lost the services of a valued public servant, in the person of Mr. J. W. Israel, the late AuditorGeneral. During his illness, the Government, under the provisions of the Audit Act, appointed Mr. C. J. Cerutty as Acting Auditor-General; but, under the terms of the act there is, on the death of the Auditor-General, no power to appoint an acting Auditor-General. Such an appointment can only be made during the life of the person holding the office of Auditor-General. The Government could, of course, appoint another Auditor-General, but here a serious difficulty arises. The Audit Act provides that the AuditorGeneral shall be appointed for life. The Government deems it desirable - and I think honorable senators will agree - that a retiring age for the position should be fixed. If we appoint an Auditor-General under the present act, he will be appointed for life; no subsequent amendment of the act could rightly take the appointment from him. The appointment of an Auditor-General is urgently necessary, because there are many matters requiring the immediate attention of the person authorized to deal with them as Auditor-General under the Audit Act.

It is essential that not a day should be lost in making the necessary amendment of the existing law. I do not propose, at this stage, to deal with the bill itself. I wish only to show the urgency of this measure, and the need for suspending the Standing and Sessional Orders on this occasion. When moving the second reading of the bill I shall explain its two provisions.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is the matter so urgent that it cannot wait until tomorrow ?

Senator PEARCE:

– There are certain forms to be complied with before this bill can become operative. To obtain assent to it may take’ a day or two. It is not desirable that there should be any longer interval than is necessary.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- My attitude towards the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders is well known. I invariably oppose such motions. But the statement of the Minister indicates that there is. on this occasion, a real need for their suspension. A situation has arisen over which neither this Parliament nor the Government has had any control. Following the example of the Minister. I shall not refer to the provisions of the bill itself at this stage. In order to get over the difficult position by which the Government and Parliament is confronted, ‘ I shall not oppose the motion.

Question put.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– There being more than a statutory majority of the whole Senate present, and no voice being raised in the negative, I declare the motion carried.

Bill (on motion by Senator PEARCE’ read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators will notice that there are two provisions in this bill. With the latter provision I shall deal first because it is the more important -

The Auditor-General for the Commonwealth shall cease to hold office upon attaining the age of sixty-five years.

The Public Service Act fixes the retiring age for public servants. When we consider the onerous duties cast upon the

Auditor-General it is clear that we require for that office a man who is in his prime, and is both mentally and physically active. From that I do not infer that the late Auditor-General did not carry out his duties in a thoroughly satisfactory and honorable manner. We all know that he did. But he was a remarkable nian, endowed, notwithstanding his age, with remarkable physical and mental abilities. It is not the good fortune of every mau to have that same mental and physical alertness at an advanced age. It is, therefore, felt that before another Auditor-General is appointed a retiring age for the office should be fixed. That age the Government considers should be 65 years. I do not propose to labour that point, because I believe that the Senate is in accord with the principle. I need only say that the Auditor-General is not an officer of the Government, but an officer of Parliament; he is responsible to Parliament only. He is the watchdog over the financial transactions of the Government, concerning which he reports to Parliament. He can be removed from office only by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. Consideration of those facts should be sufficient to convince any one that for the office of Auditor-General a man of good health and great mental capacity is needed. That fact is made clearer when we remember that the receipts and expenditure of the Commonwealth amount to nearly £120,000,000 per annum. The other provision of this bill is to increase the salary of the office from £1,500 to £12750 per annum. I remind the Senate that when, in 1901, the Auditor-General was appointed under the Audit Act his salary was fixed at £1,000 per annum. To-day it would, take a salary of £2,000 per annum to be equal in purchasing power to the salary fixed for the office in 1901. So important did Parliament regard the position that the late AuditorGeneral, on his appointment in 1901, was practically the highest-paid officer in the Commonwealth Public Service. That state of affairs continued until the Great War, when the cost of living increased enormously. The Auditor-General thereupon made representations to the government of the day, and he was granted an increase in salary by way of an allowance voted annually by Parliament. It is most undesirable that, the Auditor-General should be dependent on an annual vote for a portion of his salary. He shouldbe entirely independent of Parliament. For that reason the Government, in 1924, introduced a measure to increase the salary of the office to £1.500 per annum. That was the salary paid to the late occupant of the office at the time of his death. The existing act provides for a salary of £1,500 per annum for life for the office of Auditor-General . But as we are in this measure amending the term of office to provide that the Auditor-General shall retire at the age of 65 years, it is obvious that unless an increase in the salary is made the new Auditor-General will be in a worse position than was his predecessor. Even with a salary of £1,750 per annum the Auditor-General will not be paid so high a salary as certain other officers of the Public Service. For the heavy responsibility which the Auditor-General of the Commonwealth has to accept a salary of £1,750 per annum cannot be regarded as extravagant. Those are the two provisions of the bill, and they call for no further advocacy on my part. They explain themselves, and are justified by circumstances. The Government desires that this bill shall be passed without delay, so that, as soon as all the formalities have been completed, it may appoint to this most important position an officer who may then proceed to carry out his onerous duties with proper legal authority. I, therefore, ask the Senate to agree to this bill without delay.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I have had an opportunity to glance at this bill, and can see nothing in it to which exception can be taken. I look upon the Auditor-General as I do upon a judge of the High Court; I consider that he should be independent of Parliament unless Parliament feels that he has done something wrong. I realize the urgency of the measure. The sooner the gap caused by the death of the late Auditor-General is closed the better. The magnitude of the work shows the necessity for continuous watchfulness on the part of the Auditor-General, in order that he may correctly advise Parliament. I desire to express my regret at the death of Mr. Israel. All honorable senators will agree that he fulfilled his duties well. He rendered good service to Parliament and to the country. All my life I have advocated a proper recogni tion of a man’s worth, and adequate remuneration for his services. The duties of the Auditor-General are such as to justify the increase in salary provided in the bill. I will not say that, even then, having regard to the responsible duties to be performed,the occupant will be overpaid. I agree with the Minister that the Auditor-General should be required, as other members of the Public Service are, to retire at the age of 65 years. Realizing that it is desirable to make an appointment without delay, so that the work may be continued, I have no objection to offer to the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Salary of Auditor-General).

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The salary proposed to be paid is £1,750 a year. I do not object to that, although it is an increase upon the amount hitherto paid. My purpose is to direct attention to the haphazard manner in which salaries have been fixed for certain positions, in some instances without regard to the importance of the duties to be performed. I have in mind the salary of £2,000 a year that is being paid to the Official Secretary in Great Britain for the Commonwealth of Australia. It is well within the knowledge of honorable senators that when that lavish salary - I employ that word advisedly - was given to him, no one was more surprised than he. In this case we are fixing the salary for the Auditor-General, a post that carries far more important duties, at £250 a year below that now being paid to the gentleman I have mentioned. Every one knows that his meteoric rise was due apparently to the fact that he was close to the throne - he was under the eye of the Prime Minister of the day. Every one knows also that the salary paid to him. is far and away beyond the equivalent of the services rendered. Though the AuditorGeneral is, as the Minister has said, the watch-dog of the Commonwealth, he is to get £250 a year less than the Official Secretary of the Commonwealth in London. It is obvious that we should have some sense of relativity in fixing salaries for important posts. I offer no objection to the salary proposed for the

Auditor-General, but I do object to this policy of placing fortunate officials who happen to catch the eye of the Prime Minister of the day in a financial position far in advance of the value of the services performed. I support the bill, and only use this occasion to emphasize that salaries for important positions should bear some relation one to another, and be in keeping with the value of the services rendered.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2496

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In committee (Consideration of the schedule, item 3, resumed, vide p. 2493) :

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– I have no doubt that the honorable senator would make a martyr of himself. I know what it is compared with Scotch whisky, and I shall not drink it. Neither will the public drink it. Since the increased duty has been collected, the only result has been a decrease in the total consumption of all whiskies of 75,000 gallons. That covers a period of four mouths.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is very good.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– I do not admit that it is. It might be a good thing from the point of view of a teetotaller like Senator Thomas if it meant that men who formerly drank whisky had become teetotallers. That has not happened ; they have merely been driven to drink something for which they can afford to pay, and which is not as good for them as whisky. Whisky is a better and safer drink than any other liquor.

Senator Foll:

– It. is better to drink whisky than petrol.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– I rose merely to ask honorable senators to approach this matter in a proper spirit, and to decline to vote for the increase unless it was shown to be necessary. We should simply be following the Government blindly if w’e voted for the increase when no case had been made out in favour of it.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

– I have been handed the following letter which was written hy the secretary of the United Licensed Victuallers Association of the Commonwealth. Melbourne, to the Manager, Federal Distilleries Proprietary Limited: -

Melbourne, 2/2/26.

Die Manager,

Federal Distilleries Proprietary Limited, Melbourne,

Dear Sir,

In answer to your inquiry re prices ruling in Brisbane for “nips” of whisky, I give you the following information: -

Prior to the last alteration in tariff there was no difference between the price of Australian or imported whisky, both being sold at 9d. After the alteration last September, the price of imported was raised Id. to 10d., the Australian remaining as it was. Owing to your firm’s representations to the United Licensed Victuallers Association that encouragement should be given to the Australian article, while still’ showing a good profit to the retailer, the Brisbane United Licensed Victuallers Association reduced the price of Australian whisky to Sd. per “’ nip “ as from May 24th last,

Yours truly,

Grant.

Secretary United Licensed Victuallers Association of the Commonwealth of Australia.

That settles the point as to- whether the letter which was read by Senator Ogden proposed an increase in the retail price of Australian whisky in Queensland, as he suggested it did, or, as I urged, a reduction.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– It has been suggested that the wine industry is similar to that connected with the distillation of whisky. I should like to place before the committee one or two facts with regard to the production of alcoholic beverages in other countries, so as to make plain the distinction that in my earlier speech upon this item, I endeavoured to draw between the two. France is a wine producing country : England and Scotland produce whisky and ale. It is the rarest thing to hear whisky asked for in France, and the quantity which is made available to the various hotelkeepers is limited, France desiring to stimulate the consumption of her brandy and wines. England and Scotland are the home of the manufacture of whisky. Whether I incorrectly described the whisky industry as “ artificial “ I do not know. Australia undoubtedly lends itself to the production of all classes of grapes, from which even the best quality of champagne could have been produced in the early life of the industry had we possessed the necessary skill and equipment. It has also been suggested, by way of criticism of some observations that fell from me, that a prejudice exists against Australian whisky. That is a. libel upon the public who drink whisky in this country. They do not drink imported whisky because they have a prejudice against the Austraiian product. The majority of those men pay some regard to the cost of their refreshments. That is peculiar not to one class in the community, but to ever)’ class which consumes these beverages. There is in this matter something more than mere prejudice. Doubtless some of the wines that have been exported from this country answered the chemical test that was applied by the Customs Department, although they might not have answered the test oftaste if it had been applied. These are subtle matters, with which I am not familiar. I do not consider that any case has been made out for an increase of duty. The inevitable result of such an increase will be the raising of the price of the Australian article. Local manufacturers would act. foolishly if they did not increase their prices.

Question - That the request (Senator Grant’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Items 6, 46, 54, and 57 agreed to.

Item84-

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– I suggest that the deferred duty on rennet should come into operation at an earlier date, and, if possible, immediately the Senate has agreed to the item. The State Abattoirs at Homebush are making large quantities of this rennet of very excellent quality. Their product is being used very largely in a great many of the chief cheesemaking factories of the Commonwealth, and is winning their increasing favour to such an extent that they are giving it their unqualified approval as a high-class product, which is meeting their requirements as fully as would any imported rennet. The following table showing the value of imports should be of interest to honorable senators: -

Denmark, which is the largest supplier of imported rennet, is of little value to Australia as a consumer of our products. I have with me a number of copies of certificates from State agricultural departments and of letters from satisfied consumers in New South Wales and, Victoria, bearing out my statement that the rennet produced at Homebush is not anly equal to imported rennet, but is, if anything, superior to it. The Under-Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Stock in Brisbane describes it as -

A high quality rennet above standard in activity and much better than claimed by the makers on the label.

The Senior Dairy Instructor of New South Wales says -

Australian standard rennet is being used in the manufacture of probably over 50 per cent. of the cheese of New South Wales at present, and I venture to say that sales will be materially increased as this article becomes better known, provided it maintains its present good qualities.

The Chief Veterinary Inspector of Victoria states that the Government cheese expert has carried out experiments at several factories, and has reported that the Homebush rennet is equal to the best on the market at the present time. Holdenson and Nielson Fresh Food Proprietary Limited, of Melbourne, say -

We do not wish to have to purchase imported rennet now that we have started to use your commodity in our factories.

Bequest agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request.

Item 96-

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I should like the Minister to explain this item.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– It refers to unground spices which are to be put on the free list. Under the 1921 tariff, item 96 c, unground spices for manufacturing purposes were, under departmental by-laws, admitted free from all countries. Practically the whole of the imported spices come from foreign countries. It is hoped that this reduction will have the effect of causing the spices to be ground in Australia, and of lessening household expenses. The free admission of these goods will not injure any Australian industry. The abolition of the duty will mean a reduction of revenue of £23,540. A bounty has been approved on the export of unground spices from Papua and New Guinea.

Senator Needham:

– What was the duty?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Twopence a lb.

Item agreed to.

Item 105-

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

.- I move-

That the House of Representativesbe requested to make sub-item (aa) read as follows : - The effect of the amendment will be to add the words " artificial silk or containing artificial silk to the item. {: #debate-8-s9 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania .- I protest strongly against the procedure adopted by the Minister regarding this item. To bring forward, without notice, what is practically a new item and to ask the committee to deal with it without any information being supplied, is unreasonable. The only fair course for the Minister to adopt would be to have the request printed and circulated among honorable senators, who would then have an opportunity to consider its effect. I suggested that the Minister withdraw the proposed amendment at this stage, and adopt the course that I have suggested. {: #debate-8-s10 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia -- I was about to suggest to the Minister the adoption of the course suggested by **Senator Payne.** I now suggest that, instead of withdrawing the item, the Minister ask that it be postponed. Before again submitting his request he should supply the committee with information. It is unreasonable to ask us to consider a request of this nature without our having a chance to peruse it. We cannot be expected to take for granted what the Minister says. He has informed us that the proposal means only the addition of a few words. That may be so, but the alteration may have a serious effect. The committee is entitled to different treatment. {: #debate-8-s11 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT -- I am prepared to postpone the whole of item 105 in order that the proposed request may be printed and circulated. I suggest, however, that the same rule should apply to all honorable senators who propose to move requests. They should give notice of them. {: #debate-8-s12 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania >Will the Minister agree to every proposal for the postponement of an item in order that consideration may be given to any proposed request? {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- The Government desires to make some progress with the tariff schedule. Honorable senators should be prepared to-morrow to notify any amendments they desire. {: #debate-8-s13 .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales -- I desire to discuss the item dealing with cotton yarns, and should like the Minister to advise me regarding the course to be adopted. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- That would come under item 392. {: #debate-8-s14 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria , - Before this item is postponed, I should like to obtain an assurance from the Minister that the proposed new duties, as well as those under the old tariff, will be printed and circulated. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- The duties under the old tariff are set out in a memorandum which was circulated when the bill was introduced. {: #debate-8-s15 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania .- I do not think that the Minister has adopted the right course in connexion with this item. He has brought in what is practically a new item. Item 105 has been before us for over a week, and we are prepared to go on with it. But we have not had an opportunity to consider the Minister's request. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- It merely adds the words " artificial silk, or containing artificial silk." {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- In the original act the term " silk " includes artificial silk. The Minister's amendment is to make the position clearer. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- There is no intention to increase the duty. The alteration merely clarifies the position. Item postponed. Item 106. {: #debate-8-s16 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania .- I desire to know whether we are to have any explanation of these important items. I consider that the Minister should give us a clear explanation of the reason for the additional duty. In his second-reading speech he dealt with the bill generally, but not with specific items, concerning which he promised an explanation when each item was dealt with in committee. **Senator CRAWFORD** (Queensland- >Honorary Minister) [9.28]. - I am prepared to give the committee any explanation possible, if requested to do so. Honorable senators may not desire a speech from me regarding each item. Some items have already been passed without objection. In item 106b, there are two alterations. Buckles, clasps, and slides of metal were excepted from the 1921 tariff item 106b on the ground that such goods were manufactured in Australia, and duty was charged thereon, under item 208, 35 per cent. British, and 45 per cent. general. It was subsequently found that there were considerable importations of buckles, clasps, and slides of metal set with imitation precious stones, which are not manufactured in Australia. Therefore, there did not appear to be any justification for charging duty on them under item 208 as manufactures of metal. These goods are purely forornamental purposes - to put upon hats, shoes, and other attire, and are largely used on ladies' fancy shoes, dresses, and millinery. To impose the higher duties thereon was to penalize the bootmaking, dressmaking, and millinery industries, as well as other users of the articles. There are no statistics indicating the quantity of buckles, clasps, and slides set with imitation precious stones imported, but the quantity is considerable, and the reduction in duty will be of considerable benefit to householders, because the goods on which the articles are used are all for personal wear and adornment. It was, therefore, decided to admit such goods under item 106b, and the wording of the tariff has been altered accordingly. {: #debate-8-s17 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- It would appear, from the information given by the Minister, that the duties previously operative in respect of this item were essentially revenue-producing, and handicapped the users or wearers of certain articles that were not made in Australia. I see no necessity for the duties at all. According to a previous government there was apparently some justification for the higher dirties. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT -- Brockman. - There have been reductions in many items of the schedule, amounting in all to about £750,000. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- In this item there has been a reduction of 20 per cent. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- During the second-reading debate I declared that, as a protectionist, I was prepared to give every encouragement, by means of tariff items, to the establishment of industries in Australia, but I did not favour the imposition of duties purely for revenue purposes. The suggested reduction in these items strengthens my view that this Government is not a protectionist Government at all, for whilst it is prepared to increase duties to encourage Australian industries it is also anxious to impose duties, in. respect of articles that are not made in Australia, in order to increase the revenue. The higher duties which were operative until last September, penalized a section of the community, especially women folk. The Minister says that the Government is anxious now to remove those penalities by reducing the duties, but as heavier importations will lead to further revenue, I cannot see my way clear to whole-heartedly support revenue duties. If none of the articles included in this item are likely to be made in Australia I shall not favour the imposition of any duty on them. I should like to know what revenue was received in duties on these items prior to September last, and what revenue the Government anticipates receiving under the proposed new scale of duties. In the absence of any such information I, like other honorable senators, am handicapped. I am not anxious to assist the Government to impose essentially revenue duties. {: #debate-8-s18 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT -- In introducing the bill I pointed out that decreases proposed in the schedule represented a reduction in revenue of over £750,000, which was as far as the Government felt it could go. There are many items similar to those now under discussion. If there is to be a further reduction on these items the Government will be placed in a difficult position. A certain amount has to be provided each year, and, necessarily, a proportion must come from Customs collections. Every Government looks to this source for some portion of its revenue. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- Why not tax luxuries ? {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD: -- Luxuries are taxed. This item will not amount to a great deal, but there are many others of a similar character, and we cannot consistently further reduce the duties on this item without malting corresponding reductions throughout the schedule. {: #debate-8-s19 .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE:
South Australia .- The test that should be applied to the duties in this item is - Can the articles be produced in Australia ? If they are not manufactured here those who use them should not be taxed through the Customs. I am prepared to support the Government in any tariff proposals for the building up of Australian industries, but I am not disposed to support duties designed, merely for revenue producing purposes. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- We are not imposing new duties, but reducing existing duties. {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE: -- I am aware of that. There was no justification for the imposition of duties on these articles originally, if they cannot be manufactured in Australia. If the Government is looking for revenue, why not impose a duty on silks and satins? The burden would then fall upon the shoulders of people best able to hear it. {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator Duncan: -- Nearly all girls nowadays wear silk. {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE: -- Yes, "silk" stockings made from wood fibre. I fail to see why the users of the articles included in this item should be penalized. Item agreed to. Item 107- >By omitting the figures " 40 " appearing in the second last line, and inserting in their stead the figures " 4S." {: #debate-8-s20 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania .- If honorable senators will turn to item 107, in the tariff as it stands, they will find that this proposed alteration affects ribbons and galoons having not more than 40 ribs to the lineal inch, and not more than 3^ inches in width. The proposal is to reduce the ribs from 48 to 40. It, will impose a heavy penalty on the general' community without, I believe, being of any assistance to local manufac turers. Those honorable senators who were here when we discussed the 1921 tariff will remember that a similar attempt was made then. I opposed theproposal, and was able to satisfy the directors of the only company in the vicinity of Melbourne that was manufacturing galoons and hat ribbons that my amendment to fix the number of ribs at 4S to the lineal inch would not interfere with their industry. After I had given the Minister and the Comptroller of Customs an assurance on this point, the amendment suggested by me was accepted. The Government pow proposes to insert the item in the form objected to in 1921. I have here some samples of the ordinary commercial ribbons used by women and children in Australia. I have made inquiries, and I find that this particular class of ribbon is not made in the Victorian factory in commercial quantities. It is a splendid factory, but it confines its operations to certain classes of ribbon, mainly those used by college students for hat bands. {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator Foll: -- Do ribbons with 48 ribs to the lineal inch compete with ribbons 40 ribs to the lineal inch? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- No. One sample of ribbon which I have here is now sold at ls. 3d. a yard, but, prior to the imposition of the present duties, it was retailed at from 10½d. to lid. A second sample is now sold at 10-^d., whereas prior to these duties it was sold at 7d. {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator Hoare: -- Where is that ribbon made ? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- In Britain and Switzerland mainly. Unless the Minister can assure me that Australian factories are turning out this class of ribbon in about 100 different shades to meet the requirements of the people of Australia, I shall oppose the item, and move an amendment similar to that which was accepted by the Government in 1921. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- Are Australian factories likely to develop and make that class of ribbon? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- No information has been given to that effect. I should like to know if they are likely to manufacture this class of ribbon. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- Yes, I shall give honorable senators the information asked for. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- Is the factory manufacturing these ribbons in the shades required; and, if so, in what quantities? {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- It has sufficient looms to manufacture 400,000 yards annually. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- Is it manufacturing that quantity? {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- It has the machinery to enable it to do so. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- It is the invariable practice when manufacturers approach the Government or the Tariff Board and show that they will be able to produce 50 per cent, of the requirements of the Australian people within a specified time, to provide for a deferred duty to become operative on, say, the 1st January, 1927. Such a duty does not, however, become operative until the Government is assured that a fair proportion of our requirements is being manufactured in the Commonwealth. No such deferred duty is mentioned in this instance, and I am doubtful if any Australian factory is turning out ribbons of this particular class in sufficient quantities to meet the demand. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- - Surely the honorable senator does not think the department would deliberately ' mislead the Senate. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I am not suggesting that for a moment. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- They will not produce an article until there is a demand. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- A hat-band or galoon is rather a coarse ribbon containing so many ribs to the lineal inch, and the object of defining the nature of the ribbon imported under a certain rate of duty is to protect the hat-band industry in Australia. Some ribbons do not come in under the category of hat-bands, because they are not used for that purpose. Sena tor Drake - Brockman. - The Scotch College hat bands are imported from Switzerland. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- Tinder a duty of 50 per cent. ? {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- Probably they contain 41 ribs to the lineal inch. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- It would be interesting to know the number of shades that would be required to meet the requirements of Australian colleges. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- This item affects only ribbed ribbons. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- That is what I am referring- to. The samples I have subnutted are of what is usually termed faille ribbon, but they have ribs, and because they come under this item they will have to pay a higher duty. The only way in which to differentiate between ordinary ribbons and hat galoons is by defining the number of ribs. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- Is not that a matter for the Customs authorities rather than this committee? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- An enormous quantity of ribbon is used in Australia, and sufficient, 1 believe, to provide ample, work for a dozen factories such as that at Collingwood. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- We must make a start. We could not have a dozen factories opening on the same day. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- Of course not. I produce also, a sample of the hat galoon of the ordinary type manufactured at Collingwood, hut it is of greater width than is made there, and therefore conies in under a lower duty. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- The honorable senator is not objecting to the duty on hat-bands. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- No, but that on ordinary commercial ribbons. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- I have some information which may, perhaps, be of interest to the honorable senator. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I shall be glad to have it. {: #debate-8-s21 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT -- I have already informed the honorable senator that one factory has sufficient looms to manufacture over 400,000 yards annually. A second factory is in a position to produce a similar quantity, so there are two factories which could each manufacture 400,000 yards a year. The change proposed to 48 ribs concerns only *a* small proportion of the millinery ribbons imported, and the alteration does not affect the local hat manufacturers, who will still obtain entry under item 404 of their plain galoons for use in the manufacture or renovation of hats. When the number of ribs specified in the tariff was 40, it was found that overseas exporters immediately produced lines with 41 ribs and over to the inch, and thus deprived the local manufacturer of his protection. On several occasions the local manufacturers have brought this under the notice of the department, and the opportunity is now being taken to rectify the position. This is a very fine industry, giving employment to 150 to 200 hands, and the alteration will enable the local manufacturers to extend their businesses. A third company is now contemplating starting a factory. In opposition to this proposal, evidence was given to the effect that 43 ribs should be the maximum number included in the item. Inquiries show that the local manufacturers have produced ribbons with up to 60 ribs, but will be content with the amended proposal as the bulk of the ribbon manufactured by them will be covered by the proposal. The output of the two local companies approximates 300,000 yards per annum, but, as before stated, they are in a position to more than double their output. Representatives of the straw hat manufacturers have informed the department that they would much rather purchase their requirements from the local companies, and will do so whenever possible. {: #debate-8-s22 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania .- The Minister **(Senator Crawford)** suggests that the manufacturers in Great Britain and elsewhere have endeavoured to evade the duties by making ribbons consisting of 41 ribs to the lineal inch. Of course they have, but in doing so they are within their rights. There is a line of demarcation in every item. I am not saying a word against the factory., which I visited in 1921, when I parted with the directors on excellent terms. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- Has the honorable senator visited the factory since 1921? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- No. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT -Brock man. - I have. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- The position has altered considerably since then. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I do not- doubt for a moment that the factory is capable of manufacturing 400,000 yards of ribbon a year of a particular kind but that quantity would be equivalent to only one-twentieth of our requirements. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- Is it the honorable senator's argument that the class of ribbon to. which he refers should not be affected by this item? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- Yes. I suppose I could procure 100 different shades of ribbon which have never been manufactured in Australia. I could have understood the proposed duty if the item were framed to protect an industry manufacturing the ordinary shades of hat-bands. I cannot, however, be a party to inflicting hardship upon the community, and especially upon the wives of working people by compelling them to pay 50 per cent. more than they should. Only a few days ago I saw a well-known advertisement published by those engaged in this industry, in which no mention was made of them being manufacturers of ribbons. They are manufacturers of hat galoons, college badges, and monograms. In order to test the feeling of the committee, I move - >That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the item. {: #debate-8-s23 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- I trust that the Minister will give an explanation in regard to the matter that has been raised by **Senator Payne.** I cannot blindly vote for the imposition of duties upon articles that are not likely to be made in Australia. **Senator Payne** has said that these goods are not made in Australia. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- They are being made here. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- I said that some may be made, but in small quantities. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Some are being made at a factory which the honorable senator visited. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- In 1921. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Are we to understand that all the ribbons which come under this item are being made in Australia to-day? {: #debate-8-s24 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT -- The manufacturers of this ribbon applied to the Tariff Board for an amendment of the tariff, and established the claim that they were able to make it. {: #debate-8-s25 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania -- I should not have requested that the item be struck out had I not, in 1921, taken a good deal of trouble to visit this particular factory. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- There have been developments since 1921. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I spent a very happy time there, and put to the directors the whole position as I saw it. On the day prior to my visit, I had taken action similar to that which I have taken to-day. We went exhaustively into the matter, and they agreed that my proposal, if adopted, would not interfere with their industry. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Parliament sanctioned the appointment of a Tariff Board expressly for the purpose of investigating the claims of manufacturers. This concern established its case before that board. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- At that time, the Minister, on the advice of the Comptroller of Customs, introduced an amendment of the tariff,which the company admitted was not required. {: .speaker-JZW} ##### Senator Andrew: -- The position has altered in the last five years. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- If the honorable senator will accompany me to-morrow to retail shops in Melbourne, I shall indicate from 50 to 60 different shades of ribbon, and ask, " Are you able to buy that ribbon manufactured in. Australia?" He will find that a negative reply will be given in every case. That is sufficient to show that that classof ribbon is not being commercially manufactured in Australia. So soon as the company was in a position to do that, the retail distributers would be approached by their representatives to handle their product. I can find no such indication in Melbourne. If the item is agreed to, the general community will be compelled to pay from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. more for ribbons that they purchase daily. Request negatived. Item agreed to. Item 109- {: #debate-8-s26 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania .- I notice that there is an increase in this item. I think that the Minister might have stated the reason for it. {: #debate-8-s27 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT -- I am prepared to supply all the information I have. On the previous item, **Senator Payne** did not give me an opportunity to make an explanation before expressing his own views. The present proposal is to alter the whole item. It has a subitem (b) providing for duty on artificial flowers and sprays, trails or posies, at 4s., 4s. 6d., and 5s. per dozen; or at the ad valorem rates of 30 per cent., 35 per cent., and 40 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty. Under sub-item (a), all other artificial flowers, plants, fruits, leaves, and grains, of all kinds and materials, paid duty at the rates of 30 per cent., 35 per cent., and 40 per cent. It is now proposed to make one item, and charge 35 per cent., 40 per cent., and 45 per cent. on all artificial flowers, irrespective of the form in which they are put up. The present item has caused endless worry and trouble, both to the importers and to the department, in the examination and classification of the various styles that have been imported. Some years ago, the department, under great pressure, agreed to a fixed rate on artificial flowers when made up into sprays, trails, or posies, and Parliament ratified it. The department, however, was unable to be consistent with business people and say what was a spray and what was a posy. Much ill-feeling was engendered owing to the endless trouble in determining the classification of the various lines and practically every importation was subject toexamination and query. It was decided to take the first opportunity which presented itself to revert to one ad valorem rate for all classes of artificial flowers, and compensate to some extent for the loss of the fixed rate by giving a slightly increased ad valorem duty on all lines. Therefore, whilst the local manufacturer may lose some of the protection on the posies, trails and sprays, he will get an additional 5 per cent. ad valorem duty on the whole of the importations of artificial flowers. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- Will the Minister explain where the manufacture of artificial flowers is carried on here, and what advantage is derived in Australia by encouraging the industry? {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD: -- The industry is carried on in Sydney and Melbourne, and employs between 200 and 300 persons. {: #debate-8-s28 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- I think the proposed alterations in the duty will give an impetus to the industry of making artificial flowers, which are now extensively used in different parts of Australia. It is quite an education to those who traverse our big emporiums to see the number of people who, under the guidance of instructors, are seeking to acquire a knowledge of making these flowers. There are periods in Australia when our natural flowers, although usually growing in profusion, are not easily obtainable, and quite a number of people use, for decorative purposes, artificial flowers, which are hard to distinguish from some of the natural flowers. As a protectionist, I am glad to see a little additional protection afforded to this industry. Further than that, the alteration proposed will make it easier for the Customs officials to carry on their work. Item agreed to. Item 110- {: #debate-8-s29 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT -- As this item is a long one, I think it will meet the convenience of honorable senators if it is considered sub-item by sub-item. As increased protection has been provided for the spinning and weaving industries such increases must to a certain extent bc reflected in the duties on made-up apparel. In addition, the Australian manufacturer of ready-to-wear clothing has had to compete against increasing importations of garments made from shoddy and other low-priced materials manufactured in. overseas countries by workers who are paid wages considerably less than those paid in the Australian industry. Further, Australian manufacturers have to compete against endofseason goods and lines jobbed out at low prices to clear stocks. To show the con ditions the clothing industry has to contend with it may be stated that in England the wages for a female operative are £1 10s. for 48 hours, and in Australia £2 10s. for 44 hours, whilst male labour, according to the evidence given before the Tariff Board, is approximately 80 per cent, higher in Australia than in the United Kingdom. Importations of men's and boys' outer garments in 1921-22 were £44,019, in 1922-23 £159,522, in 1923-24 £219,355, and for eight months ended February, 1925, £126,720. These figures clearly indicate that great inroads have been made into the local industry,' present day importations being nearly five times' at much as in 192.1-22, with the result that many operatives in the clothing industry are unemployed. In order to alleviate the position the basis of duty on men's, boys' and youths' overcoats and suits and parts of suits imported separately has been radically altered, duties in the form of fixed rate and ad valorem combined, or a higher ad valorem rate of duty when such yields a. higher amount of duty, being provided. The composite rate is provided to catch the goods made from shoddy. As the imported garments are largely made from the cheaper piece goods made from shoddy the increase of duty of1s. per square yard on the lower-priced woollens has been taken into consideration when determining the rates under this item. It takes3¼ yards of material, 54 inches wide, to make a suit. It was shown in evidence before the Tariff Board that it takes 52 per cent. to 57 per cent. to bring the landed cost of an imported suit up to that of the Australian. These two factors necessitate an increase in duty at 7s. 6d. per suit or overcoat to give the local manufacturer a bare margin. The clothing industry - tailoring and manufacturing - employs about 29,000 hands, earning about £3,400,000 per annum, whilst the output is close on £11,000,000 per annum. These figures show how important it is that this industry should not be allowed to languish through oversea competition. One manufacturer of clothing who immediately after the introduction of the duties was very loud in his condemnation of them, was referred to certain woollen mills, and has since expressed his satisfactionwith the local material which he is obtaining at lower costs than the imported material he was previously using. The main trouble is the great quantity of imported garments comprised of shoddy and other very inferior classes of woollens. These are sold at prices with which the local manufacturer finds it impossible to compete. They are of a class of material not made in. Australia, and it is requested that sufficient duty be imposed to increase the selling price of these cheap,' imported garments in order that they may not be sold at lower prices than the articles made from the Australian material. {: #debate-8-s30 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania -- This is a very difficult item to deal with. I did not expect that the committee would reach it to-night, or I should be better prepared to discuss it. Honorable senators will find that in addition to a fairly heavy ad valorem duty on im ported garments of 30 per cent. in the British preference tariff, and 45 per cent. in the general tariff, it is proposed in paragraph *a,* sub-item 1, overcoats and suits to impose flat rates of 7s. 6d. British, 10s. intermediate, and 12s. 6d. general. I am dealing with the matter from the point of view of a member of the general community. The man with a wife and family finds it a very difficult matter to make ends meet at the present time. He finds with wages of £5 or £5 10s. a week and three or four children to support, that he can only about make ends meet by being extremely economical in his expenditure. Here is a proposal made in cold blood to penalize that classof individual throughout Australia to such an extent as to make the cost of these garments at least 50 per cent . more than it is to-day. There is a difficulty in dealing with the item, because it cannot be properly considered without considering at the same time another item covering woollen textile fabrics. If the people are to be able to get these goods at prices within their means it is absolutely necessary that they should be able to obtain articles of lower priced material than is produced or is likely to be produced in Australia. I take the case of a man who can afford to pay only 30s. for an overcoat. That is his limit. He will not be able to get the article at such a price ifthis item is agreed to. The coat would be invoiced at say 15s. in the Old Country, and would carry 30 per cent. duty and be retailed here at 30s. Under this item there will be imposed on that article invoiced at 15s. a flat rate of 7s. 6d. in the British preference tariff, plus 30 per cent. - not on 15s., the invoice price, but on 16s. 6d., because 10 per cent. is added to every invoice in estimating the ad valorem duty. Thirty per cent. on 16s. 6d. would be about 4s. 9d. Then there is the flat rate of 7s. 6d. to be added, making a duty of 12s. 3d. on an article invoiced at 15s. This is an impost of practically 80 per cent. I do not believe that the members of this committee consider that it is necessary to impose duty to the extent of 80 per cent. on working men's garments in order to protect an Australian industry. I have said that if our industries cannot be carried on without such a prohibitive tariff, we are better without them. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- Has the honorable senator joined the I.W.W.? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- No, I have not. I believe in reasonable protection. I do not believe in asking the workers of Australia to pay £250,000 more for the goods they require in order to create a wage sheet of £50,000 in Australia. That is not economical for the country or the individual. I claim that this tariff goes very much too far. {: .speaker-JZW} ##### Senator Andrew: -- What does the honorable senator suggest - a sliding scale of taxation according to value? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I suggest that there should be some reduction in the duties proposed on men's, boys' and youths' overcoats and suits. I move - - >That the House of Representatives be requested to amend sub-item 1a to read : - " (a) Apparel (other than knitted), articles of, viz. - > >Overcoats and suits - > >Men's, i.e. with chest measurement of 34 inches and over, each, 2s. 6d. British,5s. intermediate, 7s. 6d. general. > >Boys and youths each. 2s. British, 3s. 6d. intermediate, 4s. 6d, general. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Is it the honorable senator's idea to allow shoddy goods to come into Australia ? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- The term " shoddy" has been used liberally and frequently with the idea of deluding the people of Australia into the belief that shoddy goods are worthless. I am prepared to prove that shoddy can be made up into a cloth that will give infinitely better wear and have a better appearance than some cloth that" is not shoddy. {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator Hoare: -- The honorable senator does not expect us to believe that. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I have here a sample of shoddy which is beautiful material for overcoating, and will look well and wear well. I have another sample which is used for making overcoats, such as the average working man could buy. It is certainly shoddy, but it is perfectly warm and strong material, and would wear well. {: .speaker-KMI} ##### Senator Graham: -- Did the honorable senator say it would tear well ? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- The honorable senator must be deaf if he did not hear what I said. The term " shoddy " has caught on because it is desired by those who are anxious that this tariff should pass that the public shall get the idea that any cloth containing shoddy is worthless. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Will the honorable senator let us look at his samples? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I do not wish to part with them just now; but I shall be prepared *to* show them to the honorable senator afterwards. I am not in a position to make a comparison of wages in the clothing trade in other countries with wages paid in Australia in the same trade, but I have been able to secure some very valuable information within the last day or two with regard to the wages paid in certain allied industries, with which we shall be dealing later on. I am, therefore, at present prepared to accept the Minister's statement as to wages paid in this industry. {: #debate-8-s31 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- A vote should not be taken until a reply has been made to the statements of **Senator Payne.** The honorable senator would have us believe that he, of all honorable senators, is most anxious that no duty shall be imposed which will penalize the working class. Every argument advanced by the honorable senator has been advanced time after time by every free trader in this Parliament since federation. This is an important matter, affecting not only the manufacturers, but also the people of Australia generally. Although we are not at present dealing with all the items in Item 110, we are dealing with overcoats and suits, as well as boys' and youths' clothes. The importation of these goods has increased year by year, showing that the duties previously imposed were not high enough. In 1923 the importation of boys' outer garments were valued at £159,000. In 1924 that amount had increased to £219,000; and for the first six months of 1925 the importations were valued at £273,000. These goods could, and should, be made in Australia, where already we have 2,000 factories employing about 40,000 people. When these duties are agreed to, more and more labour will be absorbed. I am informed that large quantities of ready-made clothing, made from shoddy, have been inported in the past, as well as large quantities of shoddy for manufacture' into outer garments. This matter was considered by the Tariff Board which recommended the proposals now embodied in this schedule. The object was to place an effective duty on woollen piece goods, and to restrict the importation of shoddy material. It will be' recognized that, unless made-up articles are granted a sufficiently high protective duty, there will be an increase in the importation of such garments. The same measure of protection should be given to imported material as is imposed on made-up articles, otherwise wo shall not give to the manufacturer the measure of protection to- which he is entitled. Higher duties have been imposed because of excessive Importations. **Senator Payne** claims to be a protectionist, but I have been unable to follow, him this evening. When high duties on timber and hops, or anything that, affects Tasmania, are proposed, he supports them, as he will, no doubt, support, the duties on woollen piece goods because there are woollen mills in Tasmania. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- The honorable senator is a false prophet. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Although tariff matters are largely non-party matters, I expected the honorable senator to stand behind the Government which he professes to support. If a Labour Government had introduced a tariff schedule, its members, including **Senator Grant,** would be expected to stand behind it. As a protectionist, 1 support the Government in any proposal which it brings forward to encourage Australian industry. This duty will grant a greater measure of protection to an Austraiian industry; it. will lessen the importation of shoddy garments, and will give a better chance to the woollen industry in Australia, and to the Australians who wear these articles. I therefore support it. Progress reported. Senate adjourned at 10.42 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 2 June 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1926/19260602_senate_10_113/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 2 June 1926

BRITISH IMPERIAL OIL COMPANY

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

PAPERS

QUESTION

KIDMAN AND MAYOH

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

ELECTORAL LAW : JOINT COMMITTEE

Extension of Scope

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

Senator OGDEN:Tasmania

Senator Pearce:

QUESTION

REFUND OF DUTIES

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir VICTOR WILSON:

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator GRANT:New South Wales

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator GRANT:

Senator Thompson:

Senator GRANT:

Senator Crawford:

Senator GRANT:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GRANT:

Senator CRAWFORD:QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator Grant:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Thompson:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Grant:

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

Senator Crawford:

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Crawford:

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

Senator Crawford:

Senator FINDLEY:Victoria

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Thompson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Foll:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Foll:

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Ogden:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Ogden:

Senator FINDLEY:

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newlands:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator OGDEN:Tasmania

Senator McLachlan:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Crawford:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Crawford:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Crawford:

Senate
2 June 1926

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newlands:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator ANDREW:
VICTORIA

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931